President Obama issued an executive order enshrining Guantanamo Bay as a permanent fixture of indefinite detention rather than close the facility. He engaged in a program of targeted killings without any judicial review, going so far as to order the death of his own citizens far from any battlefield without presenting a shred of evidence of their guilt to a judge or jury. President Obama threw billion dollar contracts at his wealthy friends to provide useless add-ons to the security theater known as TSA, finding new ways to violate people's privacy while neglecting meaningful security. He even went so far as to pay friends of his administration to build machines that look at people's naked bodies. He attempted to expand the most Orwellian aspects of our society, and plan the expansion of the TSA to train stations and bus depots, maybe even have the TSA patrol highways. President Obama cracked down on whistleblowers and unfavorable leaks, prosecuting anyone who releases embarrassing details about secret actions of public concern. President Obama engaged in more prosecutions of leakers under the espionage act than all previous presidents combined. President Obama stifled civil liberties organizations at every opportunity, using state secrets and executive privilege to shutdown ACLU lawsuits without ever looking at the merits of the case.
President Obama extended the Bush Tax cuts, and engaged in trillions of dollars in deficit spending which consisted primarily of tax cuts and handouts to "job creators" all while touting the need for fiscal responsibility in Washington and blaming the other party (which, of course, it is partially to blame, as all of capitol hill is) for the financial situation in DC. President Obama put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block, offering them up as fat to be trimmed to reduce the deficit.
President Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan and tried to wiggle out of agreements to exit Iraq made by the previous administration. He also expanded the program of drone warfare to six Muslim nations. President Obama increased military spending even in the midst of a recession. President Obama rejected the war powers act and entered into a war of choice and executed this war without congressional authorization. President Obama renewed the Patriot Act.
President Obama raided legally existing medical marijuana dispensaries. President Obama presided over the shutdown hundreds of dispensaries any way he could, even going so far as to threaten landlords. He shutdown the largest and safest marijuana dispensaries, leaving hundreds of thousands of people unable to fill their prescriptions. President Obama select an economic team which is made up of the same Wall Street insiders who caused the financial collapse in the first place, and Obama shielded Wall Street from prosecutions. Under the Obama presidency, prosecutions for financial fraud dropped to historical lows even as Wall Street remained soaked with fraud and corruption.
Don't get me wrong, Mitt Romney would do the exact same things, which is why on election day, you would have to drag me kicking and screaming to the voting booth to cast a vote for either of these two fucking clowns.
On August 30 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote: Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today?
What did they do to pander? Promise to pay for women's contraceptives?
Hey ladies! Look, there's ladies in our party, too! We like ladies! Ladies are super strong and just maybe suffer a little more than men!
It was pretty funny.
yes and if we don't have women and "others" (as you put it) speak at our convention, we will be accused of all being old white men, white-washed, afraid to let women even talk, party of white men, etc.
can't win with ya'll, can we?
Just stop trying so hard
Democrats are guilty too of pandering. Do you ever wonder how many beers Obama has had a cook-outs?
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off our hydroelectric power to you guys in retaliation.
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
who in their right mind would have a problem with buying oil from Canada? i don't think republicans have ever wanted to stop buying oil from Canada. trade between allies is a good thing.
On August 30 2012 05:44 Leporello wrote: You're not going to answer point by point, just cherry-pick the one thing you think you can rebuke me on. How very xDaunt of you.
So predictable.
That was a speech. A speech from 2003 -- that is the most relevant thing you could find...
That was me feeling lucky on Google and giving you 15 seconds more consideration than you're worth.
How about you consider that there are other people reading this board, and provide them with something more relevant than a nine-year-old youtube clip and a rap video?
You wanted to make a point that Obama was pushing for single-payer healthcare system as acting President. You have failed to make that point. It is no one else's fault but your own.
I insulted you, and probably should've refrained from doing so, despite any insults I perceive coming from you. But the fact is, you make accusations, you don't back them up, and then you top it off with taunts.
yawn. I shouldn't have bothered but hear you go. You in bold. My previous in italics.
Yawn indeed. Learn to use quotes, this is an unnecessary headache the way you formatted this. The benefit is, you're going to have just as hard a time responding to this as I have to your post. Again, it's your fault.
The fact is, his insurance-mandating was, but a few years ago, considered a Republican, conservative answer to our country's real healthcare problem.
First, the subject is ObamaCare and not just individual mandate. The fact that some misguided Republicans and conservatives were for it is a red herring. The issue is the government subjucating health care.
This is improvement. You don't like insurance mandates, that's fine, but they're hardly extremist as you make them out to be. That was the point. I'm not crazy about the insurance-mandate policy either. But I do think it's a small, small improvement to what we had before.
The "real energy sector" you speak of has never been better.
Gas prices and the keystone pipeline have nothing to do with the fact that the oil industry has never been more profitable. There is talk of windfall taxes because the profits they're making are so grotesque. But I'm sure they appreciate your support. Meanwhile, Romney's plans for energy sector: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/08/27/what-mitt-romneys-energy-plan-should-look-like/
Obama has opened up more oil drilling than any president before him.
That is one ambivalent article. It ends with this: "But that cuts both ways. This is also the reason I have defended President Obama against criticisms that his decisions have caused gasoline prices to rise. The decisions he makes in this administration may ultimately impact gas prices, but due to the lag time they won’t impact gasoline prices for years. If President Obama is elected to a second term — as I expect that he will be — then he may begin to reap the outcome of his decisions by the middle of his second term. So his decisions today are certainly relevant for the future, and in 4 years he will deserve his share of the credit or blame for the status of the energy markets in the U.S."
He has, however, increased safety regulations. I guess I just see that as a good thing.
If BP hadn't been forced that far out requiring them to drilling that far down it wouldn't have been such an unusual and difficult task to stop that spill. It's a bit like requiring motorcyclists to do wheelies everywhere they go and then after an accident saying the solution is to make them wear helmets and besides they shouldn't be riding motorcycles in the first place.
You know there is a hurricane in the Gulf right now? BP not being able to control its deep-ocean drilling is BP's fault, not Obama's, and the suggestion that if BP were allowed to drill closer to the coast, that we'd be safer for it... I don't buy it.
while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt Bush ran up the debt more than anyone before him, and Obama's presidency has pretty much just been using Bush's tax plan.
But not the same spending plan! It's the spending and I say that already knowing the first response is going to be that goofy meme that Obama has actually reduced spending and that almost all of the debt from the last 4 years is because Bush invaded Iraq.
It's also employment for more Americans! Something Obama clearly has failed at.
It's also Obama campaigning against Bush deficits and promising he would cut them in half. But we all know that having those deficits actually double and triple, and quadruple is Bush's fault! Yeah the deficits were getting smaller and smaller until the Democrats got Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008 but it's Bush's fault.
Quite simply, no they weren't. You have it completely backwards. Bush came into office with budget surpluses, and every year, despite having Republican control of both House and Senate when he got into office, he turned those surpluses into deficits. I agree that Obama has added on too many deficits himself.
It's all pretty much the same. Romney's answer is to cut taxes.
No. It is a fundamental change of tax policy to reduce rates, close loopholes, and give people good reasons to not avoid taxes.
Romney's plan is speculative, and just assume's best case scenarios for itself. There is no reason to assume that tax breaks will spur enough economic growth as to magically pay for themselves. Cutting spending will help, but where? What is Romney going to cut out of the budget that won't erase jobs and possibly erode people's quality of life?
You probably have some static analysis that says 'Hey if we had kept the rate as it was we would have made even more money' which is just as logical as saying 'Hey if we charge 30 dollars for our pizza instead of 15 dollars we could triple our profits!'
That article does nothing to refute Bush's failures at managing deficits despite cutting taxes.
absolutely no reason to think it'll increase revenue this time around. No reason to think it'll create jobs either.
None of that gives any reason to think tax cuts will increase government revenue, or will increase jobs. Again, arguing Obama is complete and total failure because unemployment is high, doesn't prove that Romney's plans are going to help create any more jobs than Obama has.
It's just pure idealism at this point, not practical thinking. I'm not crazy about Obama's handling of the economy, but I'd be even less enthused by Romney's Republican-pandered ideas.
lololol, yes we all remember Obama's great slogan of 2008 "Practical thinking". And that iconic poster of Obama, looking smug, over the words "Practical thinking".
Obama ran on idealism and drastic change. In some ways, I resent him for not delivering. In other ways, yes, he's just being practical.
and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money
Do you think the President of the United States is in charge of the Fed? Or are you claiming Obama is running a criminal underground counterfeit operation? Or do you really, in fact, have no idea what you're talking about?
No. I meant Obama was literally printing the dollars, working the night shift at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. I know that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is a guy choosen at random that has absolutely no contact with the President and the policies made by the Fed are not only completely uninfluenced by what the President wants but are often done to be the exact opposite of what he wants even though that directly contradicts my claim of being completely uninfluenced.
If you can clarify what you mean here, I'll respond to it. It seems to me you made a very weird and completely-off-base accusation about the President's role in printing money, and now you're being flippant about it. But, honestly, I can't even understand this. I think it's supposed to be sarcastic, but I honestly don't even know.
and you think he's right-wing? I didn't call Obama right-wing once, don't put words in my mouth. I called him a centrist,
You just a few hours ago: Obama is more right-wing than any Democratic president in the past few decades
That's a fact. Obama is more right-wing than Clinton. That doesn't mean he is right wing. Speaking of semantics...
Please don't drag this into semantics about giant amoebas and little stars.
Okay.
Obama wants to drag the United States as far left as possible and he doesn't get credit because there weren't enough Republicans and non-suicidal Democrats to do what he would really like to do.
No. You believe that, but it's pure rhetoric.
and anyone taking any sort of unbiased look at our country's policies over the past few decades, really couldn't dispute the fact that Obama is a centrist. He didn't raise income taxes, despite Democrat pressure. He didn't institute any sort of socialized medicine, just made it mandatory for people to buy over-priced health-insurance while making it more affordable for the poor.
He makes young and healthy people buy something they don't need to get enough money to pay for the services to the poor but it's not socialized. Gotcha! And no, the young and healthy don't need the insurance they are being forced to buy. It may turn out to be a good deal for 1 in 100,000 of them but the policies they are buying are a government regulated mess.
Everyone needs health insurance. Young people get sick too. The risk of not having health insurance is devestating -- and your answer is to just let it be? Let 50 million Americans risk bankruptcy and their health for not having insurance because they can't afford it, or because they're refused coverage?
You want to improve health care? Increase supply and reduce demand. Let companies offer a variety of policies nationally the same way Geico and All-State and a dozen others do for cars and homes. Instead we have state by state fiefdoms and a tax code that has my employer paying for chiropractors and substance abuse counselors and gynecologists I'll never need.
Obama's healthcare mandates demand very little from the actual insurance companies. Insurances companies are largely responsible for your complaints here. If insurance companies want to offer more variety of plans, they can do that. But as for paying for gynecologists you don't need --- that's just how the industry works. Even though your health insurance covers things you don't need or ever will -- it's still cheaper than being faced with a medical emergency that almost no one can afford.
That is how "crazy" and "extreme" left-wing he is. I hear people like you talk about Obama, and it's completely detached from reality. He's been a very centrist president, and the Republicans have thanked him for that by claiming that his policies -- policies that the Republican party once stood by -- are too left-wing. Hopefully Obama has learned from this and will institute some policies over the next four years to give people like you something worth complaining about for once. So because I don't thank him for ObamaCare he should implement single-payer to teach me a lesson? Yeah, that sounds about right.
Yes. Instead of calling Obama extremist for doing extremely not-extreme things, you can get a taste of real extremism. I'd like Obama to reach a little further, compromise less, if/when he gets re-elected, because the hyperbole from the right-wing will always be the same, no matter what he does. The man has nothing to lose, politically, with people such as yourself. Nothing. If he's a "Socialist" by your name, then I'd like to see him live up to your standard.
The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts. Look at all those details. Hard to argue with complete made-up nonsense. Obama didn't propose any tax raises in 2009 and 2010. I wish he would have. He didn't fight for single-payer health-care. He never even suggested it. Some Democrats have fought for single-payer, but not him.
You seem to be having trouble with logic. I say that Obama couldn't get enough Democrats to do what Obama really wanted to do so he didn't do it. You then say he didn't do it so that proves he didn't want to do it.
No, I am most specifically NOT saying what Obama did or did not WANT to do. You're making those assumptions. I am simply observing that Obama's policies aren't as left-wing as his opponents make them out to be. You sourced a nine-year old speech he gave, and I'm sorry, but that proves absolutely nothing -- well, actually, it proves you were desperate to make a point for which you had absolutely nothing to base off of, and resorted to digging up whatever you could find in a Google search. Maybe Obama secretly does want Universal Healthcare. It doesn't matter. You might as well argue about Obama's favorite color.
You were mad that I got something of Obama loving single payer from 2003. Here you go. I spent an extra minute looking: How ya like me now?
2007 is better than 2003, but it isn't even 2008. Again, he didn't push for single-payer once while in office. Running for office, people have ideals. Then they face reality.
And do you really want to rehash the Gitmo fiasco? The Day 1 proof that Obama made a bunch of promises with no understanding of why things were the way they were? Remember when Gitmo was the #1 terrorist recruiting tool and drone strikes were just attacks from above that killed innocent civilians?
Um, I haven't mentioned Gitmo once. My opinion on it is that Obama has the right mindset. Our justice system shouldn't be swept away, ever. We compromised our best ideals in fighting this war, and it's made us more enemies than we needed to have. Not to mention what it's meant to our own integrity. In my opinion, everyone deserves a trial. Even the terrorists.
Republicans are apparently a lot more flexible with the Constitution than they give themselves credit for, as the war on terrorism has proven.
Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it! Tea partiers are considered crazy basically for the same reasons I think you're crazy -- you spout talking-points at a mile-a-minute and think you're in the right because no one has the patience to sift through your garbage. You mix in a made-up fact or two in a mountain of pure rhetoric and vitriol. Feelings mutual, buddy. The difference is that while you know the talking points, I know the talking points and the counter-points and the counter-counter-points. Give me something less deserving of mockery and contempt and perhaps I'll dignify the effort but look at what you wrote above and try, really try, to understand I'm merely talking to you in your own language.
I hope you appreciate the effort this is to try and work with your FUBAR post-formatting. You're welcome. And as far as I'm concerned, I've been crass with you at times, but overall, far more respectful. You're welcome.
And yes, we should raise the taxes on the upper-tax bracket. It's a pretty obvious decision to make at this point. Government needs revenue.
They always need revenue! No matter how much money they take, they come back for more. The entire mentality is built-in at the foundation where the goal of every bureaucrat is to spend every penny of their budget so they can say they need more money in next year's budget. It is the complete opposite of the free market that finds ways to deliver more and better service for less cost.
But I congraduate you on the perfect statement of Leftist philosophy. "Government needs revenue." Period. Full stop. No question of how much is too much or if they are the best ones for the task. If government wants to spend a trillion more dollars this year than they did last year, well we'll just have to take that money from the people because "Government needs revenue".
The upper-class has money to invest in creating American jobs if they wanted to -- but they aren't. They don't need lucrative, coddling tax breaks, they need to start paying more of their share.
"No matter how much they take, they come back for more"? Over the past decades, the government has taken less and less. Income taxes have dropped, dropped, and then dropped some more. You are detached from reality and surrounded by right-wing rhetoric if you can't see this basic fact. Income taxes have never been lower, and yet you complain that the President is a left-wing extremist... Do you see the disconnect from reality there?
But I hope he does actually raise taxes at some point. It's long overdue.
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off the water to you guys in retaliation.
Ever sit around and wonder when the US is going to invade Canada?
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off the water to you guys in retaliation.
Ever sit around and wonder when the US is going to invade Canada?
I don't think they need to. We're very cooperative, even when we when our rhetoric is anti-American (Chretien), we're still cooperative. As unequal as our relationship is, it's generally beneficial. Why go to the hassle of going to war.
I don't think I'd wonder that much until I start hearing "54'40" or Fight" again. Fortunately American Exceptionalism doesn't include Manifest Destiny.
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
who in their right mind would have a problem with buying oil from Canada? i don't think republicans have ever wanted to stop buying oil from Canada. trade between allies is a good thing.
Nothing wrong with it (trade that is- environmental concerns aside), it's still not technically "energy independence" however. I'll compromise and call it a half-truth.
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off the water to you guys in retaliation.
Ever sit around and wonder when the US is going to invade Canada?
I don't think they need to. We're very cooperative, even when we when our rhetoric is anti-American (Chretien), we're still cooperative. As unequal as our relationship is, it's generally beneficial. Why go to the hassle of going to war.
Yes ... but American politics is rife with crazy dicks. LOL.
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off the water to you guys in retaliation.
Ever sit around and wonder when the US is going to invade Canada?
I don't think they need to. We're very cooperative, even when we when our rhetoric is anti-American (Chretien), we're still cooperative. As unequal as our relationship is, it's generally beneficial. Why go to the hassle of going to war.
Yes ... but American politics are rife with crazy dicks. LOL.
Mind you. If we did start shutting off oil and hydro-electric power, I wonder what would happen. Still not war I think. Just massive trade embargos that will sink our economy because we're so dependent on US trade.
Edt But Keystone is just bad. I'd much rather we have Refineries on our territory for more permanent jobs rather than just have a few temporary jobs to make a massive pipeline.
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off the water to you guys in retaliation.
Ever sit around and wonder when the US is going to invade Canada?
I don't think they need to. We're very cooperative, even when we when our rhetoric is anti-American (Chretien), we're still cooperative. As unequal as our relationship is, it's generally beneficial. Why go to the hassle of going to war.
Yes ... but American politics are rife with crazy dicks. LOL.
Mind you. If we did start shutting off oil and hydro-electric power, I wonder what would happen. Still not war I think. Just massive trade embargos that will kill sink our economy because we're so dependent on US trade.
Edt But Keystone is just bad. I'd much rather we have Refineries on our territory for more permanent jobs rather than just have a few temporary jobs to make a massive pipeline.
If people seriously think Obama is some kind of gay, Kenyan Muslim Commie Nazi Socialist -- as if that conglomeration of characteristics is even something someone could be -- I wonder what these people think Canadians are like. Do they think we're actually space aliens?
Edit About the Keystone pipeline, it just seems like busy work to me.
On August 30 2012 10:12 Defacer wrote: If people seriously think Obama is some kind of gay, Kenyan Muslim Commie Nazi Socialist -- as if that conglomeration of characteristics is even something someone could be -- I wonder what these people think Canadians are like. Do they think we're actually space aliens?
If you're talking about Quebec, that's probably pretty close to how the average 'murican sees you lol.
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off the water to you guys in retaliation.
Ever sit around and wonder when the US is going to invade Canada?
I don't think they need to. We're very cooperative, even when we when our rhetoric is anti-American (Chretien), we're still cooperative. As unequal as our relationship is, it's generally beneficial. Why go to the hassle of going to war.
Yes ... but American politics are rife with crazy dicks. LOL.
Mind you. If we did start shutting off oil and hydro-electric power, I wonder what would happen. Still not war I think. Just massive trade embargos that will kill sink our economy because we're so dependent on US trade.
Edt But Keystone is just bad. I'd much rather we have Refineries on our territory for more permanent jobs rather than just have a few temporary jobs to make a massive pipeline.
If people seriously think Obama is some kind of gay, Kenyan Muslim Commie Nazi Socialist -- as if that conglomeration of characteristics is even something someone could be -- I wonder what these people think Canadians are like. Do they think we're actually space aliens?
Edit About the Keystone pipeline, it just seems like busy work to me.
We think you're Canadian (according to many Americans, that's an insult in itself).
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself moving to Canada one day. If only it wasn't so cold...
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off the water to you guys in retaliation.
Ever sit around and wonder when the US is going to invade Canada?
I don't think they need to. We're very cooperative, even when we when our rhetoric is anti-American (Chretien), we're still cooperative. As unequal as our relationship is, it's generally beneficial. Why go to the hassle of going to war.
Yes ... but American politics are rife with crazy dicks. LOL.
Mind you. If we did start shutting off oil and hydro-electric power, I wonder what would happen. Still not war I think. Just massive trade embargos that will kill sink our economy because we're so dependent on US trade.
Edt But Keystone is just bad. I'd much rather we have Refineries on our territory for more permanent jobs rather than just have a few temporary jobs to make a massive pipeline.
If people seriously think Obama is some kind of gay, Kenyan Muslim Commie Nazi Socialist -- as if that conglomeration of characteristics is even something someone could be -- I wonder what these people think Canadians are like. Do they think we're actually space aliens?
Edit About the Keystone pipeline, it just seems like busy work to me.
We think you're Canadian (according to many Americans, that's an insult in itself).
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself moving to Canada one day. If only it wasn't so cold...
It's really not that cold during the summer and spring/fall. Especially Toronto. But maybe you've been accustomed to 20 degree winters O.o
On August 30 2012 09:52 screamingpalm wrote: How is the Keystone pipeline "energy independence". Is the US going to take over Canada? :D
Maybe because they can lean on us enough that's is basically like being energy independent. Because we'll probably never turn off the water to you guys in retaliation.
Ever sit around and wonder when the US is going to invade Canada?
I don't think they need to. We're very cooperative, even when we when our rhetoric is anti-American (Chretien), we're still cooperative. As unequal as our relationship is, it's generally beneficial. Why go to the hassle of going to war.
Yes ... but American politics are rife with crazy dicks. LOL.
Mind you. If we did start shutting off oil and hydro-electric power, I wonder what would happen. Still not war I think. Just massive trade embargos that will kill sink our economy because we're so dependent on US trade.
Edt But Keystone is just bad. I'd much rather we have Refineries on our territory for more permanent jobs rather than just have a few temporary jobs to make a massive pipeline.
If people seriously think Obama is some kind of gay, Kenyan Muslim Commie Nazi Socialist -- as if that conglomeration of characteristics is even something someone could be -- I wonder what these people think Canadians are like. Do they think we're actually space aliens?
Edit About the Keystone pipeline, it just seems like busy work to me.
We think you're Canadian (according to many Americans, that's an insult in itself).
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself moving to Canada one day. If only it wasn't so cold...
Kinda like this?
West Coast is pretty mild.
As for Live. We got the "We Will Never Give Up" call and response attempt going on here. Dunno. This event seems overlong. But I guess it's just supposed to be a big rah, rah session. But I'd personally rather see less average joe's/ josephines and make it super tight and stick to the actual good speakers, but whatever. Interesting to see which bands show up at each convention (Journey, Three Doors Down).
On August 30 2012 10:34 xDaunt wrote: Christ. Now I remember why Pawlenty didn't get anywhere during the primary. The guy is better suited as an NPR anchor than a politician.
Except Pawlenty wasn't interesting or intelligent.
On August 30 2012 10:34 xDaunt wrote: Christ. Now I remember why Pawlenty didn't get anywhere during the primary. The guy is better suited as an NPR anchor than a politician.
Except Pawlenty wasn't interesting or intelligent.
I'll give you the intelligence thing, but NPR anchors are notoriously boring and uninteresting on the air.
EPT
